179 14. The Future of the Political Integration of the CIS Countries: The View From Ukraine Valdimir A. Malinkovich* Over four years after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the future of relations between the former Soviet states is still uncertain. The Soviet Union did not suddenly collapse with the signing of inter-republic agreements on December 8, 1991, in the Belovezhsky Woods. Ukraine had by then already declared itself to be an independent state, first by an act of the republic’s Supreme Rada on August 24, 1991, and later by a national referendum on December 1st of the same year. The other republics of the USSR also proclaimed themselves independent prior to December 8th. Therefore, what the Belovezhsky agreements decided was not the USSR’s fate, but what would happen after the collapse of the empire. Formally, the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was announced, but what kind of entity that might be or become remains unclear even today. What is obvious, however, is that the CIS must take on a new form, as it is not viable in its present one. The key issue for the future of the region is whether the newly independent states will pursue political and economic integration or disintegrate further. The actions of Russia and Ukraine will to a large degree determine the potential for successful integration. It is by no means clear that Ukraine wants to pursue integration with its neighbors. Ukraine’s first president, L. Kravchuk, immediately upon his return from Belovezhsky Woods, announced that the CIS was a form of a “civilized divorce” and that Ukraine must be a neutral state, unaffiliated with any political bloc. He declared Ukraine would develop relations with Russia and the former Soviet republics just as with any other countries, based on mutual interests. But President Kravchuk had domestic political motives. He understood that only an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalists, who opposed close relations with Russia, would guarantee his political power in the country. At that time, a democratic opposition party did not exist in Ukraine, and the role of the opposition was played by the nationalists. Together with President Kravchuk, they managed to convince the majority of the population that Russia and other _________________ *Vladimir A. Malinkovich is director of the Institute for the Study of Cooperation in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 180 former Soviet states have been “eating Ukraine out of house and home,” and that they would do better to limit their relations with Russia. By 1993, however, Ukraine had learned that it could not survive economically without closer relations with Russia and other former Soviet states. It became clear that more channels for integration were needed than those provided within the CIS framework. It is very likely that a single, uniform approach to integration would not be acceptable to all 12 countries of the CIS. A differentiated approach is necessary. The CIS could be more productive if a solid nucleus were formed by its most economically and politically powerful states: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, in addition to those states willing and ready to join them. This arrangement may be called the “Four-Plus Union.” Why should the foundation of the union be made up of these four countries? First of all, because these are “the big four,” incorporating over 90 percent of the territory, 80 percent of the population, and the lion’s share of the natural resources of the former USSR. If these states could overcome their economic crises by working together, they could, like a locomotive, pull up the rest of the CIS member states. Moreover, economic and political conditions are already improving in these countries, and there is public support for integration (which is absent, for example, in the Baltic states). The Central Asian and Trans-Caucasian countries, although also supportive of integration, are developing differently from Russia and Ukraine in some important ways—towards Islam and Pan-Turkish ideas in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan; and toward greater ethnocentrism in Armenia and Georgia. Furthermore, large oil and gas deposits in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and, probably, in Uzbekistan, suggest the possibility of independent development for these countries. This may make them less inclined toward integration with Russia and Ukraine. Political instability in Armenia, Georgia (and Moldova), and civil war in Tadjikistan make these countries unlikely candidates for providing a foundation for regional economic growth and political development. Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine have a much better chance of successfully playing that role. The first three, along with Kyrgyzstan, in fact, have already begun to form such a union on the basis of a Commonwealth Agreement, signed on March 29, 1996. But this is not truly a “Four-Plus Union.” It is better thought of as a “union of three plus Kyrgyzstan,” since Kyrgyzstan cannot contribute significantly to forming the basis of a strong union, which is, in any case, impossible without Ukraine. The absence of Ukraine in the March 29 agreement is not the only problem hindering the establishment of a strong union under that agreement. The March 181 agreement was dictated by the demands of the moment. It represents a step in the right direction, but the authors of the agreement should have: • waited until after Russia’s presidential election, which was only a couple of months away, to ensure confidence in the agreement;1 • prepared it in advance, and not quickly improvised the text of the agreement in the midst of Yeltsin’s re-election campaign. The purpose of this timing was apparently to draw the support of pro-integration voters. It is unfortunate, and perhaps indicative of Yeltsin’s commitment to resolving these issues, that Yeltsin did not invest sufficient time during his five-year presidency to develop a workable integration strategy within the framework of the CIS, which by that time had practically stopped functioning; • developed it jointly with Russia’s legislature, presenting it first to the appropriate committees in the State Duma. During the document preparation stage, public opinion on this matter should have been taken into consideration. Instead, the public was informed of the agreement only after the fact; • explicitly excluded the possibility of policy dictation by Russia. Integration must be based on voluntary cooperation of sovereign countries based on equal rights, and should not resemble recreation of the Russian empire or the USSR; • included Ukrainian representatives in preparing the agreement. The interests of Ukraine and its 52 million citizens were ignored in drawing up the agreement. It is true that Ukraine has shown strong indications of opposition to any kind of union. Neither the Ukrainian nationalists, nor the new government bureaucrats (the majority of which are from the old nomenklatura), nor the media in Kiev, favor integration. Part of the impetus behind this anti-integrationist posture is a fear that a pro-integration stance will jeopardize assistance from the West, which is seen as a sine qua non for a happy future. Moreover, Moscow still tends to treat Ukraine as a province subordinate to Russia. This explains why Ukraine’s leaders are prone to extending more efforts toward developing relations with the West than with Moscow, even though they may sincerely believe Ukraine would benefit from greater integration with Russia. _________________ 1This paper was prepared and presented prior to Russia’s presidential elections, when it was unclear who would hold that office after July, 1996. 182 The general public and its priorities will ultimately define the attitude of Ukraine’s government toward integration with Russia and the CIS. According to the latest (fall 1995) public opinion polls, conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, the prevailing sentiments favor integration. This trend in public opinion, however, has not yet manifested itself in a liberal, democratic political movement. Neither the nationalist groups, which fiercely oppose integration, nor the leftist groups, which favor the re-establishment of a union with Russia as the dominant power, appear to represent the broader public. The Ukrainian nationalists have been losing support amongst the general population. Although they retain influence in the Western regions and, to some extent, in Kiev, there too their influence is declining. If at the end of 1993, 15 percent of Kiev’s population supported the moderately nationalistic Rukh, by the end of 1995, only 4 percent did. It is important to understand that neither Rukh nor the more extreme Derzhavinist group are democratic. They are not united by liberal or democratic ideas, but by anti-Russian sentiments. Over 70 percent of parliamentary deputies from these factions oppose publication of official communications in Russian, despite the fact that 55 percent of Ukrainian citizens still prefer to speak Russian. These nationalist factions approach Russia not as a friendly or even a neutral state, but as an exceptionally dangerous neighbor. Ninety-five percent of Rukh members and 86 percent of Derzhavnist deputies insist that Ukraine quit the CIS. However, the majority of the population has a very different opinion. Only 9 percent of those polled were in favor of Ukraine’s leaving the CIS, while 80 percent were in favor of developing closer relations with Russia than exist today. Thirty percent were in favor of forming an economic and political union of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. An additional 12.5 percent were in favor of economic, political, and military union of these countries, and 29.5 percent were in favor of creating a single state. In 1994, even more Ukrainians supported recreating a single state (36–38 percent), but their number has decreased as a result of Russia’s civil war in Chechnya.